Timeline for Is set-induction relatively consistent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 2010 at 14:42 | history | edited | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 | addendum |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 14:02 | history | edited | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 | improved formatting |
| Jan 30, 2010 at 18:07 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | There is a little syntactic trick involved. Any Sigma-cut in a Sigma-definable initial model is also a Sigma-cut in the larger model by constraining the witnesses to existential quantifiers to stay within the smaller model. Therefore, when I is the minimal Sigma-cut, the initial model A_I has no proper Sigma-cut. | |
| Jan 30, 2010 at 16:30 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Thanks! I'm not too familiar with arguments involving lots of Σs and Πs, so I need some help understanding this. I think I follow the Σ-cut lemma, but why does a minimal Σ-cut give a model of KP⁰ that satisfies Σ-induction? | |
| Jan 27, 2010 at 4:50 | history | edited | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 | typos and a small clarification |
| Jan 27, 2010 at 3:57 | history | answered | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 |